Corporates appear to be sold on the idea of Web 2.0. More than three-quarters of executives who responded to a McKinsey survey say they plan to maintain or increase their investments in technology trends that encourage user collaboration, such as peer-to-peer networking, social networks, and web services.
More than half say they are pleased with their past internet investments, though some regret not boosting their own capabilities to exploit technology. So there are still people out there who ask their secretaries to print out their emails. Surely not.
Anyway it will be interesting to see how the results of the McKinsey survey contrast with research due out later in the year by TFPL and the Edinburgh-based Napier University School of Computing.
TFPL's Melanie Goody says that the idea of the research is to look at the risk and opportunities of social networking tool in the business market. At the moment most of what we think we know about the impact of social computing comes from anecdotal evidence, although last year the British Computer Society (BCS) estimated that £130m a day is being lost due to employee engagement with social networking sites.
The TFPL/Napier research (results in the autumn) is designed to look at the use of social tools such as Facebook, blogs and microblogs, plus more formal collaborative platforms such as Sharepoint (in which TFPL has a particular interest).
Out of the research it may be possible to start to formulate policies on acceptable use, workplace bullying and damage to corporate brand. Of particular interest to information professionals are subjects such as corporate confidentiality and the archiving of valuable employee exchanges which has to date received little attention.
Enterprises still have a lot to learn about web 2.0 and its role in the work environment. While there may be opportunities there has been a lot of focus on the downside risks. The McKinsey survey talks about the possibility of these technologies providing a sustained competitive edge. If that is the case then businesses will definitely be interested.

Posted by P. Williams | August 8, 2008 Enterprise Content Management, Information Management, Legal, Tax, Regulatory & Patent | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

By Phil Muncaster.

Autonomy has just announced a new e-discovery solution to increase its presence in this burgeoning space. When it bought archiving and e-discovery vendor Zantaz last year, the firm clearly signaled its intent to expand into areas related to its core competency and heritage of enterprise search. And while it`s still best known for the latter - and while it continues to make oodles of cash providing big name clients like the BBC, Boeing and Coca Cola with search technology - the e-discovery space represents a massive opportunity, as firms look to overcome the challenges presented by an increasing raft of legislation and industry regulations.

In the US, of course, e-discovery has been driven mainly by the recently updated FRCP - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - which lay down aggressive new rules for the discovery and presentation of electronic records as evidence in US courts. E-discovery, archiving, retention; they're all bound up in this area and with strict penalties for the destruction of evidence also part of the new FRCP, the stakes have been raised significantly for firms. Not that this is just a US problem either - just as SOX was felt in other countries, so the FRCP could have an impact elsewhere, including this side of the Atlantic.

This new hosted solution features technology to accelerate the time it takes your legal bods to review electronically stored-information and classify it according to its status, and also to review the information and make an early assessment of the related case. As you'd expect from Autonomy, which I guess prides itself on being able to scale in the enterprise search space about as far and beyond what any organisation needs, the technology can process terabytes of electronically-stored info without blinking - in over 100 languages and 1000 data types. The filtering of information in such massive data sets can make it easier to gain visibility into that information, says Autonomy.

It remains to be seen whether this being a hosted solution causes any hesitation among enterprise buyers - after all, it's meant to dig out the most sensitive of sensitive documents; will firms prefer to keep this sort of capability in-house? In its defence on the security front though, Autonomy maintains that because all elements of the solution are maintained by a single vendor, this reduces the risk of data becoming lost or corrupted, and makes the whole process more auditable. Let's see what happens; e-discovery is certainly here to stay though, and you can probably expect more big name vendors on the content management scene trying to get in on the action with "holistic, end-to-end solutions".

Posted by dgriffin | June 23, 2008 Electronic Document & Records Management, Enterprise Content Management, Enterprise Search | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Web 2.0 is a crummy name -- patronising, cloying and irritating. It presupposes that there is a clear generation gap between the first set of web technologies and the second set, as if the latter had been distributed like manna from heaven. It attracts get-rich-quick jerks, gimmicky marketeers, serial startup merchants, venture capitalists, conference organisers, insta-pundits. Even, ahem, bloggers.

Whatever you might find to dislike about Web 2.0 though (and that capital ‘W’ as if it equated to God, the Queen or some such, is one of them) it is a very interesting concept indeed. Catch-all term that it is, it has become a useful shorthand for software that relies on the wisdom of crowds, peer review, user-generated content, hyper-interactivity, friendlier user interfaces. It has even transcended the web to become a familiar aspect of client-server software too. It’s like classical music: we might not all have the vocabulary to describe it, but we know it when it’s there and we know what we like.

Web 2.0 has changed the way we use the consumer web and even performed the miraculous job of reinvigorating somnolent software categories such as human resources systems. But its ultimate business home is in enterprise content management systems.

The dirty, dark secret of many ECMs is that they are woefully under-used and, when used, badly. Non-existent or generic tags, systems that wither on the vine, training sessions that failed to get users moving, new silos that replace the old silos... these are common problems and an indictment of the usability, or lack thereof, of many an ECM.

Web 2.0 (that cringe-worthy name again) gets around the problem with technology-light tricks that encourage the user to participate, vote and swap ideas, or at least not lose valuable documents. Little wonder that companies like Vignette, Documentum, Open Text and Alfresco are all sprinkling the fairy dust on their most recent programs.

It’s probably still a little early to know whether Web 2.0 (last time, I swear) is the elixir that fulfils ECM’s huge promise, but it is a phenomenon that fundamentally changes the usability and, to dig out an ancient term, user-friendliness of software. Some elements will pass by the wayside but supporters can already show that it is rewiritng the face of what were unwieldy, ugly programs. Now, if only we could think of a new name...

Posted by Martin Veitch | February 26, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Open Text’s announcement this week that it will work with Microsoft to create services that sit on top of the latter’s SharePoint Server is a classic example of the realpolitik that currently characterises enterprise content management (ECM).

SharePoint has created a seismic shift in the category to the extent that ECM heavyweights realise that it makes more sense to make nice with the software giant than to try and stare it down. Open Text is not alone in realising this, and firms like Documentum, Interwoven, Vignette and others have done much the same. Fair enough, but the catch here is that Microsoft has a long history of turning the tables on its erstwhile partners.

The SharePoint strategy is straight out of the Microsoft playbook.

Step One: start out with a product that integrates with other Microsoft programs, and looks and feels just like them, even if it is a little rough around the edges.

Step Two: Create licensing that provides the illusion that the program is free or very low-cost.

Step Three: Get channel partners to work with the product in order to create traction.

Step Four: Adopt the marketing message that “this is [insert product cartegory name here] for the rest of us”.

Step Five: When traction has been gained, build up capabilities over subsequent versions to challenge, and usually beat, specialists.

Microsoft has pulled off this trick in server operating systems, systems management and many other areas. The likes of Open Text can argue for a while that SharePoint won’t scale, isn’t appropriate for certain verticals, doesn’t have top-end sophistication and so on. But when Microsoft enters a market it wants it all and software history is strewn with the names of companies that learned that the hard way.

Posted by Martin Veitch | February 21, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (1)  

I must admit that I was among those who thought that Yahoo would cave in, and sell out, to Microsoft. Having predicted a deal for some time, it’s human nature that I would want this pair to go ahead and combine. Now it looks like Yahoo will rebuff the world’s largest software company – at least for now, anyway.

Another prediction that I have been making for some months (OK, years) is that Open Text would sell out, with SAP quite likely to be the buyer. It hasn’t happened yet and, as another strong Open Text financial quarter goes by, you could argue that it’s becoming less likely to happen.

Let me say that even an eventual vindication of my forecasting powers is not enough for me to wish Open Text to join the rush to consolidate, and admit that there are good reasons for it to stay neutral. Some buyers will prefer a Switzerland of ECM that will not automatically try to push its own database, applications or other stack components.

Another reason is focus: Open Text has broadened its reach with deals of its own (Ixos, Hummingbird et al) but it is the one large-ish company that can still fit under the capacious umbrella branded ECM.

And, as long as Open Text stays away from the negotiating table, it can still market itself as a best-of-breed player in a sector dominated by one-stop-shops. A David surrounded by Goliaths, for the romantically minded.

That said, I still don’t buy the argument, well argued though it is in the is Big Men On Content blog, that Open Text is not attractive to a buyer because that would mean extensive duplication of assets. Modern business software deal-making, as evinced by Oracle’s capture of PeopleSoft, is largely about being able to monetise customer base rather than worrying about having too much code that was written to do the same stuff.

So I hope for the sake of competition in the ECM sector that Open Text stays solo, but I still think it more likely that a sale will come.

Posted by Martin Veitch | February 11, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Briefly, as is its wont, fame beckoned for your blogger last week when he did a tour of duty at the BBC to talk about the likely effect of Microsoft’s bid to buy Yahoo.

There’s no need to go into deep details about that putative transaction here, although, if you’d like to see what I think, you could look here, here, here, here and here. No, what struck me most forcibly was the extent to which search had beaten its old enemy, the portal. At the Beeb, headlines suggested that Microsoft was buying a leading “search engine”. I must admit raising a quizzical eyebrow as it’s a long time since I heard the term used to describe a company.

And yet…

In the mid-1990s I edited a web site that shared office space with Yahoo UK. A manager there berated me for referring to Yahoo as a search engine. No, it was a gateway to the web -- a portal, no less, he insisted.

But the company that differentiated on search quality, Google, has been the winner so far on the internet. Having a string of great properties like Mail, Flickr, Delicious and Finance has helped prop up Yahoo in hits; Microsoft has had the tie-in to a massive brand and OS; but Google’s search has been the most powerful means of making hard cash.

There is a lesson here for all those web sites that don’t deliver the search results you wanted, and even for enterprise search and content management camps. At least for many ways to search and control data, unless you have an excellent core search capability, the other guy probably has a better product.

Posted by Martin Veitch | February 5, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (1)  

If you can’t beat ‘em, join 'em, goes the old dictum, and SAP could be joining forces with Alfresco to provide it with a missing component in its enterprise software stack.

SAP’s recent decision to help pump $9m into Alfresco coffers was an indicator that the ECM open-source startup company is highly thought of in Walldorf. Of course, the investment was made by investment arm SAP Ventures and does not commit the firms to working together but you don’t wave to be Gipsy Rose Lee to read a little into these tea leaves.

Some close to SAP say that the German giant was looking for an ECM strategic purchase in the days when Shai Agassi had power. Open Text was the company most often linked back then and a deal would have made a ton of sense as the pair had worked together before on many projects. It would also have had the effect of potentially weakening Oracle, before the database giant went out and bought Stellent and BEA to give itself a full house of ECM products.

Alfresco might well be the hottest property among new ECM companies. The company has plenty of managerial experience and engineering talent from old-world ECM but has none of the legacy code and is free to explore potential of the latest tools. Its approach of building systems by layers of web services, rather than through software breeze blocks, might well fit with SAP’s NetWeaver strategy.

I spoke to Alfresco chief marketing officer Ian Howells after the investment was announced and he was keen to reiterate that Alfresco’s plan is to IPO rather than sell out. The big vision is to build a “world-class” software company and there are rich pickings to be had among smaller companies and those happy to serve themselves rather than follow the ancient enterprise path of consulting-led engagements and long negotiating cycles.

Good for him and Alfresco, but that shouldn’t preclude the company from working closely with SAP so that when enterprise applications owners come to look at content management again, there is a good fit between this pair.

Posted by Martin Veitch | January 29, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

I don’t know if the earth moved for you last Thursday but it was a pretty crazy day as merger and acquisition activity once again wrecked the old-look competitive landscape.

Sun’s deal to buy open-source database outfit MySQL probably eclipsed the much larger agreement for Oracle to buy BEA Systems in terms of media attention. It wasn’t a good day for anybody else to get a moment in the media spotlight so lots of us missed another significant purchase, that of Captovation by, that man again, Oracle.

All these deals have some significance for ECM. MySQL is the database of choice in LAMP stack deployments and a regular partner for open-source content management systems. BEA is best known for other middleware-related technologies but it also has strong portal capabilities.  Captovation adds another, relatively small element to Oracle’s ECM equation through document capture and imaging.

Confused by Oracle’s if-it-moves-buy-it strategy? You will be if it’s your job to explain to bosses what’s going on at the company. Oracle now has a full house (and more) of portals, document imaging programs, ECM system and developer capabilities, as well as CRM, business apps and integration tools. Its roadmap already looked like the M25 on a bad day, and with the BEA and Captovation contracts in place, things aren’t going to get any easier.

This is a very obvious period to ask for some face time with your Oracle rep, but give it a while yet. After all, the Redwood Shores executives will have to explain to themselves, and then their managers and staff, how having this pot pourri of technologies is going to help user organisations. You can't argue with Oracle's ability to extract stock value from its acquisitions but the jury is still out on whether it is doing anything for the people who bought the software.

Posted by Martin Veitch | January 21, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Merger and acquisition activity has been the name of the game in enterprise content management for the last few years so it was no great surprise to see EMC adding to its content management and archiving division with an $85m agreement to buy Document Sciences in the dog days between Christmas and New Year.

However, whereas a lot of the buying and selling in ECM has been about consolidation, this is a “tuck-in” deal, meaning that it is a purchase EMC can easily afford, of a company that adds incrementally to its portfolio rather than changing the face of its strategy. That said, I think it’s indicative of the direction in which ECM is heading.

Documents Sciences’ Xpression suite helps firms automate document output and communications. If you want to create contracts, marketing correspondence or company policies, its software can help. More importantly, it has pre-built hooks into ECM software, as well as ERP and CRM programs, so output management is not a silo but an integrated part of your business infrastructure.

A lot of ECM 1.0 has been about taking a belt-and-braces approach to content. It has sprung from the “save everything” and “keep the CEO out of jail” period of post-Enron paranoia. The Document Sciences deal is a reminder that making use of that stored content through automated business processes should be the raison d’etre of ECM. A fully-functional ECM system is a system for saving time by creating a single, intelligent repository of content that can be reused and repurposed in many ways.

ECM shouldn’t be a glorified storage dump and it’s good to see EMC recognise this.

Posted by Martin Veitch | January 7, 2008 Enterprise Content Management | Permalink  | Comments (0)  

Civil servants are reeling in the wake of the horrific news that CDs containing the records of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) database have been lost, and the futher news of DVLA data being lost. The full cost to tax paying members of the public may not be fully realised for years to come.

This debacle is not only an example of incredibly poor information management, but also a sign of a wider problem in the UK, that you get what you pay for. Or in this case you don't get what you pay for. 

Information management is, or rather was, at the heart of British life. Travel to former colonies like India or Australia and they'll gladly inform you of the regimented behaviour towards information that led to government structures that have served the sub-continent and prison colony well to date. Yet, those standards have dropped.

An IWR reporter remarked as we debated the issue, how come information of this value was so easy to simply download and burn to a CD?  Technology preventing such blunders is not new and is a basic function of many information management systems.

Revelations of the missing information came a day after a report on the BBC's Today programme that the Driving Standards Agency and vehicle licensing body the DVLA employees take on average three weeks sick leave a year. Missing information and low staff moral are examples of a civil service that is poorly funded and poorly managed.

It is too easy to wag the finger of blame at civil servants, when in truth a much wider debate needs to take place.  As tax payers and child benefit recipients we are angry and worried, as information professionals we are dumbfounded that such lapses could have occurred.  What of our role as citizens?  Since the 1980s we've wanted a John Lewis service, but only paid Tesco value brand prices.  If you want John Lewis quality, you pay John Lewis prices.  On the high street this modus operandi fits well with the public, as they choose when they want quality and when they want to increase their spending. So why is it that we expect our state services to manage high level information on a low level budget?

This needs to be a debate about our society and its values, literally, as well as an improvement in information management.

Posted by mchillingworth | December 18, 2007 Company & Financial Information, Electronic Document & Records Management, Enterprise Content Management, Enterprise Search, General, Information Management, Legal, Tax, Regulatory & Patent | Permalink  | Comments (0)